사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. According to the records, the court’s appointment of a public defender against the defendant on February 8, 2019, ② the defendant and the public defender are served with the notification of receipt of the trial records on February 13, 2019, ③ the court revokes the decision to appoint a public defender on the same day as the defendant and the public defender were submitted on February 18, 2019, before the deadline for submitting the appellate brief was not timely filed, ④ the defendant and the public defender did not submit the appellate brief within 20 days before the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, ④ the defendant and the public defender did not state the reasons for appeal even in the petition submitted by the defendant and the public defender, ⑤ the private defense counsel of the court of the court below did not submit the appellate brief on the grounds of unfair sentencing on June 21, 2019.
In the case of a necessary attorney-at-law, even if the appellate court appoints a public defender and notifies the defendant and his/her defense counsel of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records, and the defendant revokes the appointment of a public defender due to the appointment of a private defense counsel, the period for submitting the appellate brief shall be calculated from the date the defendant or the public defense counsel receives the notification of the receipt of the trial records (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do10651 Decided November 22, 2018), and the appellate court failed to comply with the period for filing the appellate brief submitted on June 21, 2019, which was 20 days after February 13, 2019, and the defendant's allegation of unfair
However, it seems that the nature of the crime of this case and the circumstances after the crime are not good, as shown in the judgment of the court below, but it is also true that the defendant pays the full amount of the money obtained by deceit when it comes to the trial, and the victim does not want the punishment for the defendant, and that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine or criminal punishment for property crime.